Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council

Hmm? On the BBC article it said that China will be booted out. Surely they did not support this? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Imprecise reference

The article states: "[The United Nations Commission on Human Rights] was often criticised for the high-profile positions it gave to member states that did not guarantee the human rights of their own citizens." Your description is partial and accepts the official position of some countries (the Western nations) regarding the topic. Developing nations criticized the commission for its political and selective choice of which countries to criticize for human rights violations, while leaving out nations that are friendly to Western states. The point here is that the Commission lost its credibility: it became such an important element to legitimize criticism --and possibly military action by hegemonic powers against their enemies (since, from the 1990's on, human rights started to be used as justification for military interventions), that the Commission was no longer viewed as a neutral entity. There was dispute among states to be a part of the commission precisely because it had become a political organism, which it never should have become. The point, therefore, is not just that countries did not want to be criticized; it's that the Commission was selective and used its criticism with political motivations, sometimes aiming to legitimize military interventions. I think that your text should reflect this position instead of passing the impression that the Commission's only problem was that countries that violated human rights did not want to be pointed out. This is almost like saying that the Commission did its job well.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.41.115.241 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Reference 15 points to an apparent government source that has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.238.26 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-Review

Oh dear - "the Council's members will be required to meet "the highest standards" of human rights, and will be subject to periodic review". So the Council decides if the Council members are any good. I foresee problems. (In fact, I'm not sure in some cases, such as Africa, how they're going to *find* thirteen states with acceptable, let alone impeccable, human rights records.)

Anyways, it's the traditional problem; why would a State brutual and violent enough to ignore humans rights in the first place pay attention to a body which merely tells it not to do so? history comprehensively shows this approach is utterly useless. Toby Douglass 13:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a soapbox. Talk pages are for discussing the articles they are attached to, not the subjects thereof.

James F. (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct and I accept my comment is soapbox; however, I did have an article related consideration in mind, in that it could be good to have a section discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the new structure. After all, we can also provide NPOV insight into the news. Toby Douglass 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's right. The United States should not be given a seat in it! __earth ^(Talk) 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What??

Why on Earth would the United States vote against the Human Rights Council? Surely America isn't against human rights. --Shadarian 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

there is a link. --tasc 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Shadarian, the US has a history of human rights violations, not just the present abuse cases.--Gonzalo84 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not relevent Gonzalo. They voted against it because they didn't feel that there were sufficient safeguards in place to prevent countries like Libya, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. Human rights abusing nations, from sitting on the council. pm_shef 19:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason the US votes against such resolutions is because they participate in human rights violations all the time. The invation of Iraq was unprovoked under international law and therefore a war crime (aggression). During Vietnam, the US used chemical warfare (agent orange attacks) against attacked civilian populations via its puppet regime in the south (supplied weapons, aircraft, expertise, etc). Also, in Latin america, the US has by means of puppet groups (the contras, for example) engaged in human rights violations during the drug wars of the 1980s. Further, the US supported South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1970s and 1980s, and by those means commited human rights abuses (bombing of Lusaka, the assasination of foreign diplomats). And of course, the US has been a strong supporter of Israel's human rights abuses in Gaza and the Lebanon (hence Israel always voting with the US on human rights issues). It is also worth mentioning that the US did not ratify the UN conventions on the rights of the child either, because that would prevent them from executing minors. (For references on this, read Chomsky or Zinn).
above unsigned comment by User:Dnunez

• Dnunez, please see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, neither is the Talk page an appropriate place for you to put unsubstantiated, potentially libelous rhetoric. Feel free to use your user page for that purpose. -- pm_shef 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, is just what they say. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the US is particularly sick of countries which engage in genocide, like Sudan, calling them "violators of human rights", especially when given a platform in the UN to do so. This seems to have been an effective way to deflect criticism from themselves and allow the genocide to continue. StuRat 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I am at that very moment translating the "Structure"-section into German. I noticed that in the last sentence that there is stated " [...]. The Commission was asked to wrap up its work [...]". Should this appereance of "Commission" be rendered as "Council"? --Wendelin 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No. It refers to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which the council is replacing. 131.111.8.99 20:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Annan

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed the new council, but his plan was modified in the resolution...Should that be added, or is it irrelevant? Rachel 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that such details are important. Everything gets changed in work. --tasc 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important. Annan's initial proposal was very different and far better; it's been watered down terribly in the politics of process. I think it worthwhile that the article includes an explanation of the original proposal and the final, adopted proposal. It's the old problem of getting a bad body to reform itself - reform work gets hammered into uselessness by the body incoporate which has plenty of self-interested reasons for not changing. Personally, I hold that internal reform simply does not happen; organisations are fundamentally incapable of changing their nature by their own choice, *regardless* of the merits or reasons for change. It requires an externally imposed crisis, which will either destroy the organisation or coerce it into adapting. All this matters to the article in that if we are to provide insight into events, we need to understand the nature of the problems faced by large organisations attempting internal reform. My views in this matter are a small part of that collective understanding. Toby Douglass 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually commenting that there was no mention of the origin of the proposal anywhere. Should we explain that it came from Annan as part of a plan for more reforms, or is that not really to the point? Rachel 20:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think including Annan's original proposal is important, as the adopted proposal is slightly better than the old system, but still seriously flawed. StuRat 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

holocaust deniers

I'm sure this will be another clown comission, who won't talk about historians jailed becose of their opinions. It's all politic sircus games.
Above unsigned comments by User:81.197.45.184

• Please see WP:NOT and direct your attention to the "Soapbox" section. Talk pages are not for discussing the issue itself, but for discussing the content of the article itself. As well, please try and keep your comments WP:NPOV -- pm_shef 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

New Math?

I'm wondering if anyone here can count. 170 in favor + 4 opposed + 3 abstained equals 177, not 190. That leaves 14 member nations unaccounted for (forgive the pun). Did they abstain, or were they not present for the vote (technically an abstention)?

Please. This is just embarassingly bad for a front page news related article. Anyone who knows the status of the 14 MIA nations, please add them now so we stop looking like goobers. -Kasreyn 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NB: my own hilariously embarassing error in adding this comment should not detract from the seriousness of my point. I may be a fool, but Wikipedia still needs its articles to make sense. -Kasreyn 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Added info regarding absent countries. Perhaps another 7 just didn't vote. --tasc 08:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10449.doc.htm

Vote on Human Rights Council

The draft resolution to establish the Human Rights Council (document A/60/L.48) was adopted by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 4 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Belarus, Iran, Venezuela.

Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru.

Above unsigned comment by User:85.210.20.208

There still seems to be 6 missing (if indeed there are 190 countries in the UN, and there are 170 yay votes there (I'm not counting them)) bjmurph _talk‽ 10:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There were, at the time, 191 members (there are now 192). At a glance, Papua New Guinea and Seychelles are two of the 7 unaccounted for. I think I have the answer. Chapter IV, article 19 of the Charter of the United Nation states: "A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member." Presumably, PNG, Seychelles and the other missing five have had their voting rights suspended due to arrears in payment. Aridd 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also this page on the UN's website. Aridd 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What Is the Meaning of This

Coutries, like Iran, torture those who even speak against their regime. What exactly can this body do? Isn't this just for show?

--Patchouli 08:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with reporting on the founding of the HRC? If your viewpoint has been expressed outside of wikipedia (by, say, a reputable source), then by all means include it. But this talk page is not the place to hold a discussion on the merits of the HRC charter. -Kasreyn 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement mechanism ?

No enforcement mechanisms are listed. Those COULD include referring cases to the security council with recommendations for embargoes and other diplomatic action, or for taking military action against genocide. Since no enforcement mechanism is listed, I wonder if they have any power at all or will just give lip service to human rights.

See my comment in the preceding section. The talk page of the article is for discussion of ways to improve the article, not discussion of the subject of the article. -Kasreyn 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The part for the article is that the enforcement mechanism should be listed, but isn't. StuRat 12:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Of course, you're right. My apologies. I think that mistake means I need sleep now. >_< -Kasreyn 12:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, do you need me to sing you a lullaby ? StuRat 13:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Composition of Council

"The 47 seats in the new Council will be distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group."

This seems to be weighted toward those areas of the world where the most human rights abuses take place (Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean) and against those regions with the fewest records of recent genocide, etc. (Western European and Others, which I assume includes the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). I would have expected the Council to either be evenly weighted by population (in which case Africa would have far fewer representatives than the Western Europe and Others Group) or, better yet, more heavily weighted towards those with good records. What is the explanation for this ? StuRat 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the seats were distributed on the basis of the number of member states in each group, not by the aggregate populations of those member states. WEOG accounts for some 30 out of 190 member states: about 15%, so it gets 7 seats on the council (7 = 15% of 47).

"Africa should have fewer seats than WEOG"? In terms of population, Africa and WEOG are pretty much the same size. The region that really loses out by divvying up seats by member-states instead of population is the Asian bloc; conversely (I think) EE and LAC gain. (Does Wikipedia only have an article for the WEOG, not all the others?) But that's how things are done: the UN's members are the states, not the inhabitants of those states - one state, one vote. Lapicero 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"better yet, more heavily weighted towards those with good records. What is the explanation for this ?" Ever thought about the fact that exactly those states with "not-quite-so-good" to "abysmal" records are in the majority, and that it's pretty ... naive to assume they'd give up on their advantage so easily? Bah. Fucking dictatorships. —Nightstallion (?) 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused about how members are selected

I'm a bit confused how the members are selected. I know each has to be approved individually, but how exactly are they nominated (self nominated?)? Are only the appropriate number for each region nominated or is it possible to have more then the total allowed for a region nominated? If it's possible to have more then the total, and more then the total are approved, how exactly are the states which will actually be on the council selected (e.g. based on the votes received). Finally, whatever the case, what happens if not enough states are selected/approved from a region? Nil Einne 08:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hink that they are self-nominated because there were more candidates then mandates to disperse. --134.169.5.1 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To address your questions in order:

• They are all self-nominated. The countries have to volunteer, and they have to invite observers into their countries to check how their own human rights record actually is.
• It is possible, and intended, that more than the alotted number of slots nominate themselves; else, why vote if we have exactly as many candidates as slots?
• As has happened for the Western European and Others Group, the ones with the most votes in support are selected. (None of the candidates from the WEaOG got less than 50% approval, but Greece and Portugal got the smalles number of votes, I believe.)

Hope this explains it. —Nightstallion (?) 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo request

It's got a logo -- http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19069&Cr=Human -- and that should be in the article. —Nightstallion (?) 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been added now. /Slarre 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regional Groupings, are these 'official'?

['Canada' in 'Western Europe and other states'?. Is there any reason why the U.S. wasn't there or that there is no 'regional' group covering N. America - in which case Canada is the representative nation - and Mexico should be in there also]

The Western European and Others Group article explains exactly what the WEOG is and what it covers. As for the USA's absence, that's addressed in this article: the US chose not to seek membership on the Council on this occasion. Lapicero 23:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism by UN Watch Director should be incorporated into the Article

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381839,00.html http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=108159

re Council's position on Israel

I placed an {npov} tag on that section. It sounds like highly POV and apologetic - add to that a possible WP:SYNTH. WP:UNDUE is also observed as it covers around 25% of the total article. Just a blatant POV. 41.251.66.64 04:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what exactly you found to be "highly POV and apologetic." Two people can read the same topic about Israel and feel they are incredibly biased in opposite ways. As for SYNTH, I thought that this is handled fairly well. Certain facts/patterns about voting are presented and then followed by positions from various figures. They do all support one side, but NPOV does not mean that all sides must be equally presented in terms of page volume. If you can provide links/facts that refute the criticism, please include them. As far as UNDUE, I think some of it is undue, ie two paragraphs quoting Bush when Wolff's reaction would be sufficient. On the other hand the UNHRC was founded to replace the UNCHR. Given the UNHRC's emphasis on Israel to the exclusion of other issues, which is similar to the failings of the previous UNCHR, this section is very appropriate to the subject. But perhaps the section should be retitled "controversy on position" or expanded to "criticism of UNHRC" or some such thing.Eridanos 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV flag. This section is filled with quotes from reliable sources, all in agreement. Even Costea, the president of the UNHCR, agrees that there is an anti-Israel bias! If you can find a source stating otherwise, quote it. Stop flagging, start editing! Emmanuelm (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removal of this tag. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The section Controversial country-specific rapporteurs

I suspect that this section is a bit out of date. Were not the Belarus and Cuba special rapporteurs discontinued already last year? As for the presently ended session 7 (I just went through the draft protocols), the North Korea rapporteur indeed seems to be highly contested, but the Myanmar one not at all. (The council consistently employs that name instead of the older Burma, whence I think it apt to do the same in references to its resolutions.) Now, this is only what I can find out from the official documents; I do not know what goes on behind the scene, and would prefer if someone following news reports of the issues updated the section.-JoergenB (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Annan" :
  • On [[20 June]] [[2007]], Secretary-General [[Ban Ki-moon]] joined Western nations in criticising the world body's own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules. A UN statement said, "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." The [[European Union]], Canada and the United States attacked the singling-out of Israel's role in the [[Palestine|Palestinian]] territories for continued special investigation, under the deal reached in Geneva two days earlier. The Geneva meeting aroused further controversy after [[Cuba]] and [[Belarus]], both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates, which included [[North Korea]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Sudan]], carried forward from the defunct Commission.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156891659323879.html The U.N.'s Human-Rights Sham - WSJ.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • The UN Secretary-General: [http://hrw.org/un/pdfs/annan_address120806.pdf Address to Mark International Human Rights Day] 8 December 2006.
• "HRC7add1" :
  • [http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G08/123/07/PDF/G0812307.pdf?OpenElement Session 7, draft report,] Published 2008-03-28, accessed 2008-04-11
  • Human Rights Council: [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-L11.doc. Session 7, draft report, addendum 1] Published 2008-03-28, accessed 2008-06-06.
• "economistcouncil" :
  • {{cite news |title=Bad counsel |work= |pages= |language= |publisher=''The Economist'' |date=[[2007-04-04]] |url=http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8966293 |accessdate=2006-08-16 }}
  • ''A Shadow on the Human Rights Movement'', By Jackson Diehl, June 25, 2007; Page A19, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401373.html www.washingtonpost.com]

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush's remarks

I have removed overlong quotations of Bush because the section becomes slanted in favor of a particular point of view. His remarks have nothing to do with the UN Human Rights Council or its position on Israel. For Wikipedia editors to interpret Bush's remarks as criticism of the HRC amounts to original research. ABarmenkov (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

The source provided for the claim that the organisation is Antisemitic doesn't use the word Antisemitic. The word Antisemitism should not be used when the sources talk soley about a bias against Israel. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

anti Israeli bias, 2009

Riots in China. Protests in Iran. UN rights council talks about ... Israel. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

...and something about Darfur: The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the UNRC has become mostly a political tool to wage lawfare against unpopular countries. I really think the section on Israel could be expanded to a more quality extent but reduced in size. Information is way too scattered and sub-headings should be added. The contrast with the latest Sri Lankan war could also be merged. I'd argue the issue is less about bias and more of a systematic and institutionalized code of conduct.

I think if we focused more on the all-around flaws, that would be better. While it is true Israel bears the brute of the moral criticism, countries like Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka continue to endure endless civil wars and famines at a loss of 8,000,000+ people, 15,000,000+ refugees/IDPs, and hundreds of billions of dollars. This needs to be fleshed out. Do you want to work on this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) If anything this article gives the council too much credit when it's main occupation seems to bash Israel. There was no criticism of Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah to engage in terrorist act against Israel.Tannim1 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)